• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:88]Atheism is a political doctrine

Re: The National Discussion about Religion

Angle who?:2razz:
 
Frank who?:2razz:
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
You have made some convoluted assumptions about my research, and then, you are assuming that the etymology reveals the necessary scrutiny that would test the semantic possibilities throughout the evolution of social sophistication.

If the original meaning of the word, "atheism," or "aeos," was correctly interpreted, then the original definition was erroneous, as well.

Your argument is approaching similarity to the theists' justifications for their respect for antiquated legends, and the Bible as a reliable source of information concerning the history of the world and guide for society.

So, what was the order of events? Some Greeks professed to not believe in the gods and the aristocracy, or politicians, banned them, or something, because they were violating the theocratic laws, and at some point they designated them as, "atheists," not because they were opposed to the laws that compelled theism, but because they did not believe - right??? Or was it durring the reporting of the events that the author determined to designate them as, "atheists?" What is your theory as to how it came about? Can you prove it?

The etymology does not reveal the exact circumstances. I understand why it seems to be good enough for you - your sense of scrutiny is going to be easily satisfied, because of the phenomenon of believing that previous generations were innocent and honest, and could not fail to report all aspects of any dilemma, such as what I am describing.

But my sense of scrutiny recognizes that it was a theocratic society that makes very little demarcation between religion and politics, and that the problem I am describing was of lesser significance, way back then, than the significance of the error in the modern era. As we approach perfection, the imperfect aspects of abstract ideas tend to be more significant. Certainly, you would agree that the abstract ideas of gods is adversely affecting our advancement towards a better society, and that it needs to be shunned - right? So it is with abstract ideas that are valid, but improperly deployed due to the lack of necessary information.

...
Click to expand...

Words are just a collection of sounds and have no objective inherent meaning. We give those sounds intellectual meaning but what meaning we give these sounds is completely subjective and is different in every language. Even in the same language, the meaning and the sounds themselves can slowly change over hundreds of years as people move away from old meanings, as we can see from the move from old English to modern English. The most important thing isn't that we make sure our definitions are 100% historically accurate but that there is a consensus of what the words mean, even if that consensus is different than 200 years ago or even 20 years ago. But even with a consensus you will still find individuals who still stretch the current meanings of words, and groups and regions with their own variations on the standard meanings. We can also have multiple conflicting meanings to the same word that different groups and people use it for.

You define atheism as a political ideology but I have heard nobody else define it that way so it lacks consensus and isn't currently a good definition. The original etymology of atheism is lacking beliefs in Gods, which can include religious people like some Buddhists and spiritualists who believe in the supernatural but lack any Gods in their religions. However, people don't use atheist to describe these people so because the consensus doesn't match the etymology, we should go with the consensus.

The way I hear the word atheist used is a non-religious non-spiritual person who either doesn't believe or lacks belief God exists, or believes that God doesn't exist. Those are the consensus definitions, and I will use those definitions because it makes communicating my ideas with the general population most smooth. Dictionaries tend to be mostly correct when looking up how people use words but don't always give the complete detail into all the ways each word is used and the specific meaning people give them.

I suggest that instead of fighting the consensus definition and trying to define atheism as a political ideology, you debate over whether its reasonable to not believe in God, whether its reasonable to believe he doesn't exist, whether an anti-religious political ideology is reasonable, or whether most people who don't believe in God hold an anti-religious political ideology. Instead of debating the meaning of words all the time, lets have a real debate of ideas and ensure that at least we understand the ideas other people are referring to when they are using words.
 
distraff said:
The most important thing isn't that we make sure our definitions are 100% historically accurate but that there is a consensus of what the words mean, even if that consensus is different than 200 years ago or even 20 years ago. But even with a consensus you will still find individuals who still stretch the current meanings of words, and groups and regions with their own variations on the standard meanings. We can also have multiple conflicting meanings to the same word that different groups and people use it for.
Click to expand...

No Kidding, reaallly?!?!?!

Am I the one who was worried about the historical accuracy ****???

:lamo
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
No Kidding, reaallly?!?!?!

Am I the one who was worried about the historical accuracy ****???

:lamo
Click to expand...

I myself admitted out of deeper thought that consensus usage of a term is a better usage than its etymology or any definition you individually prefer. You are free to personally define atheism however you like, but you are going to have explain your definition of the word every time you use it with someone new to avoid confusion. Since I use the consensus definition, I don't need to do that.
 
Re: The National Discussion about Religion

Prof_Lunaphiles said:
This will probably be dismissed as "informal definitions."
I'm very confident that 'belief' is not a good term for distinguishing abstract entities - all abstract entities require belief, and confidence, that your contestant doesn't have a different definition of the word - right???

And "philosophical and ethical," is probably too ambiguous, and the rest is very wordy - why??? trying to make it sound beautiful???

"...and generally prefers critical thinking," are you serious???:lamo
Click to expand...

Oh and furthermore, why can't you answer the question you omitted from my post? You merely exonerated the other three abstracts with nothing more than assertion, yet they can fall into the same category if one applies a little reason.

Here it is again:

So how does atheism become a political doctrine? Is it because some are politically active such as the FFRF?
 
Re: The National Discussion about Religion

Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Do atheists have definite descriptions for these abstract concepts that they will competently guard in their arguments at state sanctioned courts?

Religion
Theism
Atheism
Humanism
Politics
Philosophy
Ideology

I am very confident that this entire list is in dispute, and that if we can stabilize the definitions then we can have the national discussion about religion in America that independent critically thinking atheists have campaigned. Until then, this will be as far as the national discussion about religion will get.
Click to expand...

Why do we need to have a national discussion about religion in America?
 
Re: The National Discussion about Religion

Prof_Lunaphiles said:
  • Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.
  • Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
  • Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
  • Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy.

I have not determined the rest of the list - the disputes are less problematic, and in classification areas that are in dispute, as well. Where as, the words I have listed are well documented to be in dispute, and I can deliberate better definitions, because of my experience in understanding the order of knowledge (technology) - the category hierarchy between an ontological doctrine, a political doctrine, and the psychological attitude of belief, that atheists want to assign to the descriptions of the words.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times that you say that crap (or how many threads that you start), its still complete BS. You might as well be saying that war is peace.
 
Re: The National Discussion about Religion

Moderator's Warning:
Two threads merged.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Please, please, direct me to the historical timelines that you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Centuries of demonising Jews in Europe is the classic example, with the Holocaust being the best known (though not only) consequence. Or you could look in to the treatment of Catholics following the Protestant reformation in England. Or in both directions between Israeli and Palestine and more widely between the Middle East and the West.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:
I believe this is a completely irrational argument, and there is no sense in deliberating the rest of your response, because it has conflicting ideas that have to be parsed. I would like to know what your state of mind is? A month ago it appeared that you were content in understanding that such discussions go nowhere, but in this instance you are suggesting that I am aligning with some very infamous tragedies - what gives???
Click to expand...
Arguments about how to define the word atheism do go nowhere and are generally pointless. Sometimes though, those debates inadvertently or are intentionally used to attack people the speaker doesn't like or agree with, by twisting a term commonly used by or applied to their opponent to make it implicitly bad. That is what you appear to be doing, even if you didn't intend to.
 
First off, thank you for the merger of these threads.

Secondly, we still have zero reason to change the meaning of these terms so that the OP can force Atheism exclusively into a political doctrine away from these other terms. There has been little to no evidence or even argument to look at the terms Humanism and Atheism differently.

... can't wait to see what the OP comes up with next.
 
Dragonfly said:
Probably something moronic like:

"Baseball is a political doctrine."

:doh
Click to expand...

Baseball isn't, but on the other hand Football IS. And the AT&T stadium in Dallas is still the best tornado shelter because there are no touchdowns there.
 
distraff said:
I myself admitted out of deeper thought that consensus usage of a term is a better usage than its etymology or any definition you individually prefer. You are free to personally define atheism however you like, but you are going to have explain your definition of the word every time you use it with someone new to avoid confusion. Since I use the consensus definition, I don't need to do that.
Click to expand...
You will also find that there are multiple definitions, and your 'consensus' definition is going to be further down on the list, and probably described as, "informal."

atheism

noun

1. doctrine that opposes theism
2. doctrine that opposes theism biased doctrine
3. belief that there is no god
4. political doctrine that opposes theism biased doctrine as the basis of public policy
5. lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality
6. (undetermined)
Click to expand...
It is amusing how excited atheists get when suggesting the reform of "atheism." Atheists treat the dictionary definitions just like religious doctrine. Welcome to modern information organization: Do-it-yourself dictionary editing techniques are available. Please do not be afraid to use scientific methods for deliberating the definitions of all of the words. Scientifically stable definitions will be necessary for the deliberations of reason and the details of the social contract theory.

You do believe in the Social Contract Theory - don't you?

How to Write a Dictionary Definition: 13 Steps (with Pictures)
 
Last edited:
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
You will also find that there are multiple definitions, and your 'consensus' definition is going to be further down on the list, and probably described as, "informal."


It is amusing how excited atheists get when suggesting the reform of "atheism." Atheists treat the dictionary definitions just like religious doctrine. Welcome to modern information organization: Do-it-yourself dictionary editing techniques are available. Please do not be afraid to use scientific methods for deliberating the definitions of all of the words.

How to Write a Dictionary Definition: 13 Steps (with Pictures)
Click to expand...

I will note that although you followed the from of 'how to write a dictionary definition', you missed one big step. And, that is being accurate on how the term is used. You used your agenda to write a non-standard definition, and therefore gave misinformation out.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
You will also find that there are multiple definitions, and your 'consensus' definition is going to be further down on the list, and probably described as, "informal."


It is amusing how excited atheists get when suggesting the reform of "atheism." Atheists treat the dictionary definitions just like religious doctrine. Welcome to modern information organization: Do-it-yourself dictionary editing techniques are available. Please do not be afraid to use scientific methods for deliberating the definitions of all of the words. Scientifically stable definitions will be necessary for the deliberations of reason and the details of the social contract theory.

You do believe in the Social Contract Theory - don't you?

How to Write a Dictionary Definition: 13 Steps (with Pictures)
Click to expand...

I define the word Matterhorn as a horn that they blow in Zwitserland when something is the matter.
 
Dragonfly said:
Probably something moronic like: "Baseball is a political doctrine." :doh
Click to expand...
All organizations of people have a right to campaign political grievances based on biases against the organization.
 
Bacteria. The rear entrance to a cafeteria.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will note that although you followed the from of 'how to write a dictionary definition', you missed one big step. And, that is being accurate on how the term is used. You used your agenda to write a non-standard definition, and therefore gave misinformation out.
Click to expand...
You might see it that way, but the definition(s) that I am providing for is in an effort to commence the settlement of recurring disputes, such as when theists suggest that atheism is a religion; and when atheists describe a relative spectrum of atheism: weak atheism, strong atheism, militant atheism, etc..
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
You might see it that way, but the definition(s) that I am providing for is in an effort to commence the settlement of recurring disputes, such as when theists suggest that atheism is a religion; and when atheists describe a relative spectrum of atheism: weak atheism, strong atheism, militant atheism, etc..
Click to expand...

Other people have a different definition of the word. What makes you the final arbiter?
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
You might see it that way, but the definition(s) that I am providing for is in an effort to commence the settlement of recurring disputes, such as when theists suggest that atheism is a religion; and when atheists describe a relative spectrum of atheism: weak atheism, strong atheism, militant atheism, etc..
Click to expand...

Your definitions are wrong. I reject your attempt to redefine those words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom